[enum-wg] The ENUM Federation: activities, website etc.

On 27 Aug 2012, at 15:56, Carsten Schiefner wrote:

> As you may be aware, I have had some multilateral, but also  
> bilateral talks with some of you wrt. the ENUM Federation and  
> particularly its website at:
>
> 	http://www.enumfederation.org/
>
> As I got it, there have recently some ideas been floated around  
> amongst the BoD members about a very last attempt to give the idea  
> behind the Federation a push.
>
> Reasons are, amongst others, that ENUM in the Carrier space gets  
> more and more grip, but also in the public name space with the  
> advent of the NRENUM activities.
>
> But although the registration of a phone number as an ENUM domain  
> bears quite some similarity with the usual registration of a domain  
> under a TLD, there is at least one crucial thing that might actually  
> hinder a massive take-up in registration figures, even if all other  
> preconditions are fully in place: that is that the registrant would  
> never fully "own" a number where the ENUM domain is derived from -  
> contrary to a classic domain name. There is carrier and geopgraphic  
> number portability in place, of course - however, if one cancels the  
> PSTN service the number comes with the number goes away too.
>
> So, the ENUM federation could also be a good place to initiate a  
> discussion about a change in this regulation scheme, for example.

Carsten, I wish you and the ENUM Federation every success. However I  
fear you're flogging a very dead horse. User ENUM is dead. If the ENUM  
Federation can bring it back to life, good luck! If the ENUM  
Federation can do that, could you please revive the hamburger meat in  
my fridge and turn it back into a live cow again? :-)

IMO "ownership" of an E.164 number has not been a significant factor  
in getting User ENUM to fly. Besides, I very much doubt regulators or  
telcos will be receptive to requests to change current practice which  
has stood for decades. I would be delighted to be proven wrong. One  
niche that might be exploited is 3G dongles. These have E.164 numbers  
(for SMS spam from the provider) but no telephony service as such.  
I've no idea how ENUM could be used with them though.

Even if this perceived ownership barrier was removed, far bigger ones  
remain.

Telcos rely on call termination charges, even VoIP providers. So they  
won't be keen on losing that revenue if calls to "their" numbers were  
allowed to terminate at an arbitrary SIP server instead of something  
buried deep inside the PSTN that generates a billing event. IIUC some  
VoIP providers stay in business from the termination charges  
incumbents pay them to deliver calls from the PSTN to their nets. [And  
watch for the FUD about how a SIP server on the Internet can't be as  
reliable or secure as the same SIP server run by a telco inside its  
NGN.] There are similar revenue protection concerns over PSTN break- 
out from a VoIP provider's net.

Another big issue is incumbents generally don't disclose details of  
their key infrastructure such as where their interconnects and SS7  
switches (or equivalents) are located. There's just no way an  
incumbent is going to publish the names and addresses of their SBCs  
and what have you on the Internet. The rationale for keeping that  
information private should be obvious.

This is why User ENUM died. The chicken-and-egg problems with ENUM- 
aware applications and services were another important factor.  
Enterprise ENUM might work in a controlled (closed?) environment such  
as a multinational company or maybe the NRENs that have their own  
numbering plans. And of course Carrier ENUM is doing well for things  
like number portability and call routing inside the PSTN.